Advocates appeared:For the Appellant(s) :Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Satwik Misra, Adv. Ms. Deepeika Kalia, Adv. Ms. Gunjan Dogra, Adv. Ms. Devashree, Adv. Mr. Keshav Khandelwal, Adv. Ms. Vasudha Singh, Adv. Ms. Udita Singh, AOR Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Deepeika Kalia, Adv. Mr. Mrityunjai Singh, AOR Mr. Keshav Khandelwal, Adv. Ms. Vasudha Singh, Adv.For the Respondent(s): Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR Mr. Shantanu Sagar, AOR Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Raj, Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv. Mr. Gunjesh Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Jain, Adv. Mrs. Divya Mishra, Adv. Mr. Nishesh Sharma, AOR Mr. Shyam Kishore Sharma, Sr. Adv. Ms. Prerna Singh, AOR Mr. Chander Uday Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gautam Narayan, AOR Ms. Asmita Singh, Adv. Mr. Harshit Goel, Adv. Mr. K.V. Vibu Prasad, Adv. Mr. Chander Uday Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gautam Narayan, AOR Ms. Asmita Singh, Adv. Mr. Harshit Goel, Adv. Mr. K.V. Vibu Prasad, Adv.

What is the scope and limitations of Video Conferencing for courts as per Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020 in relation to remand, charging, and examination of accused? What are the standards and conditions for a court to order retrial or de novo trial due to trial irregularities, and what must the appellate court provide in its order? What are the guiding principles for fair trial and sentencing, including the duty to provide access to legal aid and the need for a sentencing policy, as discussed by the Supreme Court?

Key Points: - The judgment emphasizes that video conferencing for judicial remand or examination of the accused is to be used only in exceptional circumstances with reasons recorded in writing, and production of the accused before court is preferred over remote appearance (Paras 4, 11, 21; Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020 (!) - (!) , (!) - (!) , (!) - (!) ). - It clarifies that retrial or de novo trial by appellate courts is permissible only in exceptional cases where there is a miscarriage of justice or serious prejudice, and the appellate court must provide a reasoned order detailing the nature of the miscarriage of justice (Paras 27-28, 262-269, 245-246). - The text stresses the centrality of fair trial and due process, requiring adequate supply of documents to the accused, opportunity to consult counsel, and that sentencing must consider mitigating/aggravating factors with a potential need for a comprehensive sentencing policy or guidelines (Paras 7-12, 16-21, 28-36, 50-55, 315-323). - It holds that supply of documents under CrPC sections 207-209, 231, 233, 238 etc. must be timely and sufficient to enable a fair defense, and non-supply does not automatically vitiate trial unless prejudice is shown (Paras 62-66, 101-116, 118-123, 132-154). - It directs consideration of a comprehensive national sentencing policy, referencing international examples and recommending Government action to study and implement guidelines (Paras 691-707, 711-716, 717-725). - It requires adherence to the POCSO framework and expeditious trial, and recognizes necessity for reformative sentencing approaches (pockets around 775-778).

What is the scope and limitations of Video Conferencing for courts as per Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020 in relation to remand, charging, and examination of accused?

What are the standards and conditions for a court to order retrial or de novo trial due to trial irregularities, and what must the appellate court provide in its order?

What are the guiding principles for fair trial and sentencing, including the duty to provide access to legal aid and the need for a sentencing policy, as discussed by the Supreme Court?